I'll do you one better than that. I'd be more than happy to take a flight on the Shuttle and test the things I've worked on in space. I'd even get in an EVA suit and fly around using the SAFER back pack that I helped developed.

There's no such thing as 100% safe. Remember Murphy's law. And when you're dealing with thousands of tons of highly explosive rocket fuel, you don't want to take unnecessary chances. Nobody in their right mind would get within a mile of a rocket launch, no matter how safe it was deemed to be.

The idea was not to make it perfectly safe, since that's impossible, but to reduce the chances of a catastrophic failure to an acceptable level. The risks were well understood and accepted.


And S-V, would you please stop changing up your initial posts like that? The edit button is there for the purpose of making minor corrections, not wholesale revisions. People need to see your original statements in order to understand the context of the replies. If you have something to add, post it in a reply at the bottom of the thread, where all the conversation is taking place anyway. It's just common courtesy.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

SaturnV, it is poor taste to remove your articles and substitute the text with something else. There are people who read these threads long after the participants are finished with them, and it's very difficult to see what questions are being responded to if the questions have been removed.

Here is the full text of your latest, so that it cannot be removed. I will respond point-by-point below.

2. the saturn had only five nozzles and russian rockets had over 30 because of extreme temps created by the fuel the bigger the nozzle the more likely it is to burn through

American engineers had better metallurgy. This is how they were able to build more powerful single engines. Boosters with few engines are more reliable than boosters with many engines. The Soviets used many small engines because that was the limit of their metallurgical understanding.

3. acoustic vibrations resulting in burn anomalies causes the thin metal walls to burn through ...

You're mixing acoustical effects with thermal effects. Please make up your mind.

Have you ever seen a real rocket combustion chamber? I've worked on, disassembled, and studied Rocketdyne engines. The combustion chambers are not made of "thin metal walls".

... makes rocket explode thus the saturn was just an light empty shell which was used to convince people a rocket did blast off

You omit to describe how the various development problems with the F-1 were solved. You are presenting only half the evidence. With the full weight of evidence, there is no justification for arguing that the Saturn V was just a prop. The engines behaved as expected, therefore there is no reason to suppose the Saturn V was incapable of its task.

Besides, there are literally thousands of photographs and thousands of eyewitness accounts to the design, testing, assembly, checkout, and launch of the Saturn V. You ignore this evidence completely. Were all these people in the hoax? Were they all fooled by the hoax? Please elucidate.

the pogo effect was probably the reason the saturn had to be faked using smaller more proven rockets

Why do you ignore the evidence that the pogo problem was addressed, solved, and/or mitigated? All the Saturn V vehicles, including those deemed operational, exhibited pogo. Many rockets of the time did. Pogo in itself is not a reason why a rocket cannot be useful.

the saturn rockets blew up on numerous occasions in the testing stage

Where is your evidence?

None of the Saturn V's exploded in flight. Do you perhaps mean that certain components of the Saturn V failed catastrophically during test? If this seems strange to you, then it is perhaps because you do not understand the purpose and rationale of engineering testing. Catastrophic failure tests are common in this type of engineering. It does not mean that the final product is unduly dangerous.

as we learned with challenger sometimes rockets do not divulge their problems until it was to late

The public learned of the problems with the SRBs in hindsight. Engineers knew of the problems long before the Challenger disaster. The accident occurred not because it was not known that the problems existed, but because various pressures kept those problems from being given the attention they deserved. Do not confuse what is reported in the media (or not reported) with what is known by practioners in the relevant field.

If the scientists and engineers as you say were confindent that the rocket would not blow up why were they hiding miles away from the launch site

A Saturn V rocket when operating properly is still a tremendous risk to onlookers.

No one ever said that rocketry was perfectly safe. But you must distinguish between necessary risk and foolish, unnecessary risk. The astronauts took the necessary risk of riding the Saturn V because they obviously could not do their jobs without doing so. The ground crew can perform effectively from a safe distance, so there is no need for them to place themselves in unncessary danger.

Think about your argument carefully. It's really quite silly. You're claiming the Apollo missions were falsified because the ground crew didn't act in a bravado fashion. Don't you think that's rather flimsy?

The saturn had hydrogen tamk leaks plague building the program because hudrogen was so untried and dangerous

Hydrogen is not as dangerous as some fuels. The common hypergols, for example, are highly toxic, highly corrosive, and ignite spontaneously on contact with air.

The difficulty in working with hydrogen derives from its extremely low cryogenic temperatures and its small molecular weight. Aluminum actually strengthens at those cold temperatures. But welds needed to be extra tight. Fittings too. This is because hydrogen, being a very small molecule, leaks easily.

However, again you cite only half the evidence. There were indeed welding difficulties with the Saturn V tanks, just as there were welding difficulties with the Venture Star tanks. You seem to miss the point that space development often requires developing new and untried technologies, and that failure along the way is not only expected, but common. You fail to cite how the welding problems were solved.

insulation was yet another grand problem

... and another problem that was successfully solved.

Your pattern of argumentation remains unchanged. You cite problems during the development of highly sophisticated and experimental technology, and somehow suggest that the existence of these problems means the final product was not suitable. You selectively eliminate discussion of the solutions, but the real problem is that you seem to miss the point of what engineering is. Engineering is, precisely, the solving of problems. Problems have to occur before they can be solved.

Can you point to a single engineering endeavor that didn't encounter and overcome problems? What will it take to make you see the utter silliness of your entire line of reasoning?

<a name="2-11-08.SaV"> page 2-11-08.SaV aka SaV
On 2002-11-04 17:37, SaturnV wrote: To'
yeah?
1
I guess i'll refer to `EM as "Matter0facter$" {M?f} for short
2

3

4

9. insulation was yet another grand problem

well? its my lack of link to the
russian rocket
]http://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html
{link to Ru.Ro goes here MAYBE}

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-11-08 17:41 ]</font>

A brief excerpt from JayUtah replying to Saturn V.

Imagine this. The ground crew acts with foolish bravado, staying well within the radius of danger. What would the HBs say? "This proves the launches were faked because a real engineer would never be that close to any danger."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Papermache Prince on 2002-11-08 11:18 ]</font>

The engineers who designed the Boeing 747 were not standing on the runway during its first flight tests. Nor have they ever done so, as far as I know.

That means that the 747 can't fly. After all, if those engineers had doen their jobs properly, it would be perfectly safe to stand within a few feet of it as it took off.

So why haven't they done so? Huh? Huh? Answer me that! You can't, can you? I didn't think so. Not one of those so-called 747s has ever flown, and anybody who thinks they saw one take off was really seeing a Wright Flier covered in Saran Wrap.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

With all rockets prior to the Saturn V, launch control was in a blockhouse very close to the pad and (of course) very well reinforced against the worst possible outcomes. For the Saturn V, they didn't even try that approach: the launch control center is next to the VAB, over three miles away.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Don't do that to me! On Monday I have to sit on one of those things for 10 hours and 10 minutes, and I sure hope it keeps flying the whole time.

Edited for spelling.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: aporetic_r on 2002-11-09 05:06 ]</font>

SaturnV,
Are you aware of how INCREDIBLY LOUD
a multi-million pound thrust rocket motor is?
The Saturn V and the Space Shuttle approach the theoretical maximum for SPL (i.e. 2 atm peaks - 0 atm troughs). Not only that but, it is bandwidth unlimited white noise (fractional Hz subsonics - high ultrasonics). These sound levels are lethal!!!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Funny, but a few days ago I saw a movie about Boeing and some chief engineer told the story how he put his wife to the place besides the runway, where it was supposed to lift off on its maiden flight.
All calculations were correct and the bird went into the air at the right place.

Harald

A few problems with this:

-The Saturn V had never had any serious problems resulting in abort/destruct, from the first (unmanned) flight, to the last flight, carrying Skylab to orbit (unless you say Skylab was fake.)

-It was procedure to launch a rocket for the first time unmanned, not because they were "cowards", but because they were smart. The Saturn V was a complex machine, and they were not going to take an unnecessary risk, especially when they weren't planning to put men into orbit at the time. The initial flights were to test the vehicle, and determine if it was safe to fly. As it turned out, it was.

-You never ever ever ever EVER put personnel at undue risk. It strikes as idiocy and can get people killed. As someone mentioned before, the sound produced by the Saturn V was enough to kill if one were to stand at a close proximity, to say nothing of the heat and pressure from liftoff, potentially dangerous exhaust plumes, and, of course, the risk of explosion. Keep in mind, however, that the astronauts riding the thing were in a pressurized spacecraft, and not subject to the intense noise.

Also, what does the "early days of the Air Force" have to do with this? This was NASA, not the infant USAF. I do, however, question the validity of your statement regarding USAF policy.


-Adam

SaturnV, I'm going to ask you again politely: PLEASE don't keep re-editing your original posts. There's nothing your most recent addition that couldn't have been placed in an entirely new comment. Do us a favor and leave the original alone from now on. Copy the entire message and post it again if you have to, but please post all new material down here at the bottom of the thread.

(I'm not going to comment on the insulting nature of your most recent title change.)

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Now, to comment on this:

1: The Saturn V, as with all manned rockets, was not untried.

2: Neither did it have a bad history. AFAIK, there were no catastrophic failures (unlike many other designs) or anything that couldn't be compensated for. The worst problem appears to have been the pogo effect, and they managed to ride that one out and correct it in subsequent launches. As has been explained before.

3: Having confidence in your design is not a good reason not to take reasonable safety precautions. As mentioned above, there were several reasons to keep at a very good distance, and not all of them had to do with worries about failure.

4: As stated above, the Air Force is not NASA, and even if the rule had existed in the past, it doesn't mean it had any bearing on the development of the S-V. Aircraft are not rockets. Besides, this "rule" sounds pretty bogus to me. For one thing, engineers are generally not pilots and wouldn't be expected to fly their creations in the first place, much less be trusted with test-piloting untried designs. Can you give any citations of it's existence or why it should be applicable to this situation?

5: You are only making yourself look more and more foolish by continuing to hang on to this argument in such an illogical fashion. Anybody with reasonable thinking can understand the balancing of reasonable precautions with acceptance of necessary risk involved in the space program. Why can't you?

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

They could have worn ear plugs. Duh!!!

Better safe than sorry.

David Hall worte:I'm not going to comment on the insulting nature of your most recent title change.
Saturn V in reply: Well I don't have a very good record with NASA.

Is your friends name Buzz Aldrin?

You're bloody stupid, do you know that? There was never any sort of policy in the United States Air Force that even remotely suggested that those who built something had to try it out first. Companies that do contract work (such as aircraft construction) for the U.S.A.F. hire or subcontract out pilots from the Air Force itself as a matter of course.

Suggestion of anything otherwise is patently false.

With regard to "perfectly safe, so why were they so far away" or whatever you blathered, let me ask you this: automobiles, from an engineering standpoint, are much safer per capita than manned space-craft. Why don't you go stand out on the divider line between lanes of your nearest, busiest highway? I mean, the cars are safe, right?

I would recommend if you wish to be taken seriously here that you stop editing your posts days after you've been pantsed.

__________________
I'm a Christian.
I believe the world is billions of years old. Why? Because God gave me COMMON SENSE!

Ignore this mans quote he told me to go stand in front off cars because he wants to kill me. Maybe he works for NASA you know they killed people to. You know Gus Grissom, the challenger incident, and all of those other supposedly non-related astronaut deaths.